Posts by Bruce__H

Quote from Alan Smith

I am certainly in the same boat as you and others mathematically. However, I have only pointed out in support that we have found Wyttenbach 's theories are both predictive and explanatory in terms of observed system behaviour in our laboratory, for me this experimental proof suggests his math also has a high probability of being right.

All well and good ... but unpublished.

Which predictions? Confirmed by what observations? Until I see all this fully described, I can neither agree nor disagree that Wyttenbach's theory has empirical support. I think that is reasonable.

Quote from RobertBryant

Speak for yourself Bruce-H ...

I am. I have said several times on this forum that I do not have sufficient mathematical insight to comment effectively on Wyttenbach's work. And I am certain that Alan Smith (who has recommended close study of Wyttenbach's theories) is likewise incapable of providing effective feedback. Indeed I suspect that everyone here is in the same boat.

Except, I guess, you. From what you say, it seems that you feel you have such a heavyweight knowledge of group theory and particle physics such that you can check over Wyttenbach's ideas. Is it so? If it is then he has no need of submitting his work to a journal or giving talks. He doesn't need to put his work in front of world experts. He has you. Happy days!

Seriously. Wyttenbach's ideas about an SO(4) underpinning for particle physics are untested as far as I know. He need to have his theory checked out and not by amateurs. That will help him. Why do you object?

Has any part of the SO(4) theory been submitted to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal?

The advantage of doing this would be that an editor of such a journal has the ability to put a submitted manuscript before competent referees and request that they provide detailed feedback.

Wyttenbach needs to reach beyond ResearchGate. Publishing there is simply not good enough. As far as I can make out, no one there has ever seen fit to provide substantive feedback on the SO(4) theory. Nor does naive support from the denizens of this forum count as substantive feedback.

Quote from steppenwolf

Seams more unlikely

To be fair. Mr Rossi seems to have ongoing health problems and last year, at least, he chose to have them treated in Italy. So that may be a factor in his travels this year too.

Quote from steppenwolf

Another possibility could of course be him planning and installing new industrial plants at customer premises?

Is that what he was doing there last year at this time too?

Quote from sam12

I have posted comments on Rossi blog on Feb 17,19,22,23 and March

6,9,13,15, 2019 that A.R. has replied.

They all correspond to Miami time.

The reply on Feb 22 was at the unusual time of 2:46 am.

Rossi replied to you on Feb 22 2019, at 2:46AM (US Eastern Standard Time). But this wasn't an unusual time for Rossi to be posting. That is because in mid-February Rossi appears to have been be in a European time zone (probably in Italy but the actual country is just my guess). On Feb 23, 2:46 AM EST in the US, where Rossi's blog server appears to be, would have corresponded to 8:46 AM Central European Time. Going back to 2011, Rossi has always begun his blogging day sometime between 7:30 AM and 9:00 AM wherever he is (including during the Doral 1-year test). So the apparently early-morning response you received from Rossi on Feb 22 isn't really unusual at all and has a straight forward explanation. Early-morning (US time) posts from Rossi have been going on since about Feb 7 of this year with Rossi's final posts of the day occurring sometime between 3 and 6 PM US time. This all corresponds to someone living in Europe and blogging from about 8AM till about 10PM their time

In contrast, before Feb 7, Rossi's first blog post of the day was usually somewhere around 8:00 AM EST (US) and his last post was often near 10:00 PM EST (US). This, of course, would be a common pattern for someone living in Miami and indeed we know Rossi he was in that region at that time because that is where Frank Acland saw him during the Jan 31 presentation.

So it looks as though Rossi has spent the last month and a half in Europe. Probably resting. Do you have something against the poor guy getting a little rest after all of his exertions? Is that what is troubling you?

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm not sure it needs to be this. I agree it is obviously a Rossi sock puppet, but could as easily be a case where Rossi wanted to say his stuff was safe from interference.

Rossi is not subtle about his lack of observable product. He just leaves things 12 months and drops them, while keeping his audience entertained with a new story. Rossi is good at new stories though I think his ingenuity when it comes to spoofed demos has been poor recently. Where are the old demos when you actually to work out some new way in which they were spoofed? Now he just does not bother to measure input power.

I agree about Rossi's recent demos. They lack the brio of the old ones. It may be a reflection of his having to deal with his health challenges.

Here we go! Here is a message that appeared on Rossi's blog this morning

1. Megan March 19, 2019 at 5:04 AM

   Dr Rossi,

   Did you notice attempts of interference in the remote control system of the Ecat that is making heat?

2. Translate Andrea Rossi March 19, 2019 at 6:34 AM

   Megan:

   No.

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

"Megan" has the attributes of a Rossi sock puppet.

- This is the only time she has appeared on the blog even though her question shows an awareness of Rossi events

- She writes in slightly garbled English

- She shares a time zone with Rossi (Rossi's sock puppets move around with him. Right now Rossi appears to be in Europe. He has been there since a week after the SK presentation).

It has been 6 weeks since Rossi's Jan 31 presentation. In that presentation he said it would take "weeks" for a customer to begin receiving heat from his device once they had their order accepted. So it is now time for Rossi to show some results .... unless some foul persons who don't want to see the world progress find a way to block Rossi's path to success.

I predict that "Megan's" worry is the first sniff of something that will unfortunately require Rossi to delay the roll out of his system. This will require another year at least of tuning up his systems before they can finally be unleashed on a grateful world.

I think we are going to hear a lot more about attempts to interfere in the remote operation of Rossi's plants. Here we see Rossi planting the thought.

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, that was a concern.

Why do you think this?

Quote from Shane D.

I went and checked, and everything I said is correct. The "Swedish Embassy" was involved via a complaint, but it says nothing about the US Ambassador to Sweden, so I withdraw that little part...although it makes sense being in Sweden.

Doesn't any Swedish Embassy, by definition, have to be outside Sweden?

Quote from Shane D.

What I show, is that they were concerned about the QX being used in a conference room, Rossi's history and his desecrating their hollowed grounds by his presence there.

You are saying that the use of the QX was a concern to the IVA. Where do you get this information from?

It certainly isn't from the public statement. Nor is there even a hint of it in the communication that Dewey has released, which is delightfully clear.

I get the sense that you have been told something by someone you trust. It is sounding as if they are wrong, however.

Quote from Shane D.

Their problem was with Rossi being there, and using the QX in a conference room.

This is not what the communique from the IVA said. It says nothing about using equipment in the conference room. It does say, a couple of times, that they do not support the messages conveyed during the conference. It also says that they felt that the content of the conference did not promote science. Here is the wording.

"IVA would like to announce that the Academy does not support the messages conveyed at the conference at IVA Conference Centre on 24 November 2017 attended by, among others, Andrea Rossi.

IVA is an academy that promotes science. IVA also runs a conference centre https://ivakonferens.se/ which is open to companies, organisations and individuals. The IVA Conference Centre conducts background checks on those who book conferences rooms and also, to the extent possible, checks programmes to ensure that any messages conveyed are not contrary to IVA’s objective, which is to promote science. In this case IVA would like to clearly state that the Academy does not in any way support the messages conveyed at the conference in question."

I would call that pretty clear. Maybe they had some problem with unknown equipment being used in the conference hall, as you say, but I think it is plain that this is not the heart of their grievance. I think you are just wrong on this one Shane.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

I've got the scoop, I know what happened. I know where you went to get yours - you don't know what happened or the present status of things.

We can skip the upgrade to something more intentional if anybody just wants to keep playing hand-grenades.

Please just come out and say whatever it is you have to say. If it is factual then I don't see why you want to keep it secret.

Quote from IH Fanboy

As you can see by Para's post above, Rossi only hinted at the Uppsalla professors building a replication device and running an experiment with non-phase-change water calorimetry. Rossi didn't claim that the results were positive. So it seems unlikely that the physicist Mario Menichella's claim that the Uppsalla scientists have replicated (without publishing the results) the Rossi effect came from Rossi himself.

It may be that I am mistaken in the way you say ... but I recall a different post. I'll see if I can find it.

Menichella doesn't appear to be much of a physicist. He goes with Rossi's claim about the temperature of the SK plasma hook, line, and sinker whereas it is obvious nonsense. I think that Rossi simply doesn't understand the physics behind blackbody spectra and I don't think Menichella has the knowledge base to correct him. Menichella is a good writer however. For the first time I think I understand how Rossi fit a blackbody curve to his data. I am amazed how naive and clutzy and just plain old wrong his procedure was, but now I think I understand it.

Quote from Alan Smith

Not surprisingly, the Swedish University of Uppsala has already replicated, more than a year ago, the previous generation E-Cat reactor (the Hot-Cat), although no public announcement has been given. But how is the E-Cat SK made and works?

This is a claim that Rossi himself was making on his blog a while ago (i.e., more than a year ago). I get the feeling that quite a bit of what we see in Menichella's article comes pretty directly from Rossi.

Who is Menichella?

Quote from StephenC

Bruce__H. Any chance you could post your comments about the poisson statistical analysis and the graphs on ECW as well?

Done. It may take up to 24 hours to appear.

Wyttenbach's conspiracy-laden worldview fills me with worry that he actually has nothing.

Quote from stefan

It's a bit dangerous to match the height of Rossis spectra with the black body spectra.

Absolutely correct. My intention was to show how different a blackbody spectrum is from the spectrum Rossi has (where are all the longer and shorter wavelengths?). And yet he goes and hangs his entire COP calculation on an argument that it is a blackbody spectrum we are seeing.

If you have a true blackbody spectrum then you don't have to use a calibration standard, I think that is why Rossi tried to go down this road

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Bruce, can you explain this sentence better? According? To what? I assume a black body at some temperature, but did anyone say it should be one? And the peaks aren't there, so I guess that is what you are getting at?

Sorry. The peaks are supposed to be there according to Rossi. I've now made that clear in my original post. Thanks for pointing out my omission.

In the Jan31 presentation Rossi founds his whole calculation of the thermal output of the SK (and hence its COP) on a supposed peak at 357 nm. If the spectrum is indeed blackbody and if its peak is indeed at 357 nm, then the temperature of the plasma should be 8111 degrees C and the rate of heat production for the SK should be about 22 kW. This is exactly what is needed to heat the room the SK is supposed to be sitting.

I don't see much of anything at 357 nm. Here are the data shwon against what a blackbody spectrum with a peak at 357 nm should look like.

The peak at 437.2 nm is one Rossi predicted on theoretical grounds as an indicator that a particular LENR

mechanism is at work. I don't really see that one either

StephenC

At each wavelength I have placed 95% confidence intervals on the SK spectrum. Here they are ...

I have indicated spectral features that appear to be statistically different from their surroundings. Red marks indicate peaks and, since I can't really differentiate emission features from absorption features, green marks indicate significant troughs

The data are for summed counts over 17 separate spectral acquisition cycles shown in the Rossi presentation. Wavelengths shorter than 350 are not shown ( this region definitely contains large emission peaks)

I think we see 2 things from this. First, the spectrum from 350-420 contains discrete spectral features. Second that throughout this region there also appears to be a continuous, thermal, component. I would be glad to hear anyone's opinion on a mechanism for the the continuous component to just abruptly disappear above about 423 nm.

According to Rossi, there are supposed to be 2 important features of this spectrum ... a blackbody peak at 357nm and a discrete spectral peak at 437.2 nm.